Murari vs Shyam Sunder
2025 Latest Caselaw 6104 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Murari vs Shyam Sunder on 4 December, 2025

           RSA-3938-2025
                    2025 (O&M)                                                                   -1-

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                                                  -.-
                                                      RSA
                                                      RSA-3938-2025 (O&M)
                                                      Decided on ::- 04.12.2025
           Murari                                           ....Appellant

                                                       VERSUS

           Shyam Sunder                                               ....Respondent

           CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
                           M JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

           Present:
                  Ms. Nidhi Dahiya,
                            Dahiya Advocate for the petitioner
                                                    petitioner.
                                          -.-
           MANDEEP PANNU J.

           CM-14496-C-2025
                      2025

                               This is an application for condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the

           appeal.

                               For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and

           delay of 04 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

           CM-14497-C-2025
                      2025

                               This is an application for seeking permission to treat the Court fees as

           fully paid.

                               For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed subject

           to all just exceptions.

           RSA-3938-2025
                    2025 (O&M)

           1.                  The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
                                                                                       appellant

           defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2019 passed by the

           learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hodal whereby the suit of the plaintiff for

           possession by way of specific performance
                                         performance of agreement to sell dated 12.08.2015

           was decreed. The appellant further challenges the judgment and decree dated

           01.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal whereby the
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.12.05 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
            RSA-3938-2025
                    2025 (O&M)                                                                -2-

           first appeal preferred by him was dismissed and the ffindings
                                                                 indings of the learned trial

           court were affirmed.

           Brief Facts

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff

instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of a

registered agreement to sell dated 12.08.2015 12.08.2015 in respect of land measuring 06

kanals 05 marlas (two-ninth (two ninth share) out of land comprised in various khewats and

khatas in village Gorota, Tehsil Hodal, District Palwal. The plaintiff pleaded that

on 12.08.2015, the defendant, being owner of the suit lland, and, agreed to sell it to the

plaintiff for a sale consideration of ₹15.62 lakhs and that the date for execution and

registration of the sale deed was fixed as 18.05.2016. It was asserted that the

plaintiff paid ₹15.50 lakhs as earnest money. As per the te terms rms of the agreement,

the defendant was required to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after

receiving the balance sale consideration and to get the suit land redeemed from

existing mortgage before the date fixed. The plaintiff claimed that hhee later came to

know that the land was mortgaged with PLDB, Hodal, and Syndicate Bank, and

therefore the defendant was obliged to clear the loan amounts before the execution

of the sale deed.

3. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was always ready and w willing illing to

perform his part of the agreement and that he remained present in the ooffice ffice of

Sub-Registrar, Registrar, Ratia, on 18.05.2016 along with requisite expenses for stamp and

registration, but the defendant did not appear. The plaintiff asserted that he had

even n marked his presence through an affidavit attested by the Executive

Magistrate. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendant on

26.05.2017 calling upon him to execute the sale deed, but the defendant failed to

RSA-3938-2025 2025 (O&M) -3-

comply. The plaintiff alleged alleged that the defendant became dishonest and was

attempting to sell the land to some other person, which compelled him to file the

present suit seeking specific performance.

4. The defendant, upon service of summons, filed written statement

raising preliminary iminary objections regarding cause of action, locus standi and

suppression of material facts. On merits, the defendant denied the agreement to sell

as a genuine transaction and asserted that on 12.08.2015 he had taken a loan of ₹12

lakhs from the plaintiff at an interest of two percent per month. According to him,

the signatures obtained over the alleged agreement were taken on blank papers

only as security for the loan, and there was no intention to sell the suit land. The

defendant pleaded that he had already already repaid the entire loan with interest and that

the plaintiff, by misusing the blank signed documents, initiated the present

litigation only to harass him. He also pleaded that he never intended to sell his

property which was worth more than ₹80 lakhs pper er acre and that the alleged

agreement is a forged and fabricated document created for ulterior motives. All

other averments of the plaint were specifically denied and dismissal of the suit was

sought.

5. On the basis of rival pleadings the learned trial court framed the

following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession by way of

specific performance as prayed for? OPP

(ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

(iii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to

file the present suit? OPD

RSA-3938-2025 2025 (O&M) -4-

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct and

acquiescence to file the present suit? OPD

(v) Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has

concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD

(vi) Relief.

6. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself and several

witnesses including registry clerks, patwari, and bank officials. He produced the

registered agreement to sell dated 12.08.2015, receipt receipts, s, affidavit of presence, loan-

loan

ledger registers of PLDB and Syndicate Bank, BCS registers, and Jamabandi

records for various years. After leading documentary and oral evidence, the

plaintiff closed his evidence on 31.08.2018.

7. The defendant examined himself himself as DW DW-1 1 and also examined Sh.

Prem Singh (DW-2) (DW 2) and Sh. Soni Ram, Numb Numberdar (DW-3).. He relied upon

another agreement to sell dated 17.05.2013 and receipt dated 17.05.2013, asserting

that the alleged 2015 document was never intended to be an agreement for sale.

The defence evidence was closed on 11.01.2019. No rebuttal evidence was led by

the plaintiff.

Findings of the trial Court

8. The learned trial court, after conclusion of the evidence, decreed the

suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance with costs and

directed the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt

of the balance sale sale consideration and on the agreed terms within a period of two

months from the date of the order. It was further directed that in case the defendant

failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within the aforesaid period

RSA-3938-2025 2025 (O&M) -5-

of two months, the plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed executed through

the process of the court at the expenses of the defendant.

Findings of the lower appellate Court

9. The learned lower appellate court examined the entire evidence and

the impugned judgment of the trial court with due care and circumspection. It

recorded that the case of the plaintiff was that the defendant, being the owner in

possession of the suit property, had executed an agreement to sell dated 12.08.2015

in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of ₹15,62,000/-,, out of which

₹15,50,000/- had been paid as earnest money, and the remaining amount of

₹12,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed fixed for

18.05.2016. The appellate court noted that the ddefendant efendant did not appear on the date

fixed for execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff examined (PW (PW-2)

2) Naresh Kumar

and (PW-4)

4) Onkar Singh, who were attesting witnesses of the agreement and

receipt, and they deposed that the parties had signed the agreeme agreement nt in their

presence and that the earnest money had been paid. (PW (PW-3)

3) L.R. Rawat, Advocate,

the scribe of the agreement, corroborated that the contents of the agreement and

receipt were written by him on the instructions of the defendant and that the parties parti

signed the documents after admitting them to be correct. The appellate court

observed that nothing incriminating came out during cross cross-examination examination of these

witnesses to disbelieve their version.

10. To prove his readiness and willingness, the plaintiff relied upon

affidavit dated 18.05.2016 (Ex. P-3), P 3), and legal notice dated 25.05.2017 (Ex. P P--5).

During cross-examination, examination, the defendant identified his signatures as well as his

photograph on the agreement and receipt in question.

            RSA-3938-2025
                    2025 (O&M)                                                               -6-

11. On the other hand, the appellate court recorded that the defendant's

case was that he had borrowed ₹12 lakhs from the plaintiff in the year 2015 at two

percent interest per month and that the agreement in question was executed only as

security for the loan. The court noted that that in the written statement the defendant

changed his stand and pleaded that the plaintiff obtained his signatures on blank

papers, making his stand contradictory and doubtful. It further held that although

the defendant claimed to have repaid the entire loan amount, there was nothing on

record apart from a bald assertion to prove repayment, and the defendant had not

disclosed when the alleged repayment took place, making his version highly

doubtful.

12. The appellate court also considered the argument th that at the defendant

had obtained a loan from the plaintiff's uncle Krishan Kumar and that the

agreement Mark D1 was executed in favour of the uncle. However, it held that

Mark D1 was not an original document and could not be read in evidence for want

of proof.. It further found that even if the defendant's version was taken as correct,

the agreement relied upon was beyond the pleadings, as nothing regarding such

transaction was mentioned in the written statement. The appellate court also

recorded that except for for a bald assertion, there was nothing on record to show that

any loan transaction between the defendant and Krishan existed or that the present

agreement was executed as a security for the loan.

13. The appellate court concluded that if Krishan Kumar had any

grievance regarding the subsequent agreement in favour of the plaintiff, he could

take action against the plaintiff, if so advised. It held that, on the basis of the above

discussion, it was clear that the agreement (Ex.P (Ex.P-1) was not executed ecuted as security securit

for the loan, rather, it was meant to sell the suit property. The appellate court found

RSA-3938-2025 2025 (O&M) -7-

that the trial court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and that there was no

illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2019 warran warranting ting

interference.

14. Accordingly, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal as being

devoid of merit with costs

15. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, appellant

has approached this Court by way of filing of the present regu regular lar second appeal.

16. Since the short controversy is involved in the present regular second

appeal,, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent respondent.

Findings of this Court

17. The Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant appellant-defendant defendant at

length and examined the entire lower court record as well as the judgments of both

the Courts below. The submissions raised on behalf of the appellant are dealt with

hereunder.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant first contended that the document

Ex. P-1 was never intended to be an agreement to sell and that the signatures of the

appellant were obtained only on blank papers at the time of taking a loan of

₹12,00,000/-.. It was urged that Ex.P-1 Ex. 1 was merely a security document. This Court

finds no substance in the said contention. The record clearly shows that the

appellant himself took contradictory stands even within his pleadings and failed to

produce any independent material to establish that the document was executed as

security for a loan. The attesting attesting witnesses and the scribe consistently deposed to

the due execution of the agreement, and nothing has been shown from the record to

discredit their testimony. The version of the appellant is inconsistent, unsupported

and rightly rejected by both the Courts Court below.

            RSA-3938-2025
                    2025 (O&M)                                                                 -8-

19. It was next argued that there is no credible proof of the alleged

payment of earnest money of ₹15,50,000/-,, and that the receipt Ex.P Ex.P-2 2 is

untrustworthy as it is not supported by any bank withdrawal or corroborative

financial record. This submission submission is also untenable. The Courts below have

concurrently found that the plaintiff proved the execution of the agreement and

receipt through attesting witnesses, the scribe and the admissions of the appellant

during his cross-examination.

cross The mere absence nce of bank records cannot override

the oral and documentary evidence proving execution. The appellant has not been

able to point out any misreading or oversight of material evidence in this regard.

20. Learned counsel then submitted that the findings of both Courts suffer

from perversity, as the suit was decreed on testimony of interested witnesses alone.

A careful examination of the judgments reveals that the Courts below evaluated the

depositions of several witnesses, including official witnesses, exami examined ned the

documents placed on record, and considered the contradictory stands of the

appellant. The argument of perversity is wholly misconceived. No perversity,

illegality or omission of vital evidence has been demonstrated.

21. It was further argued that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous

readiness and willingness and that a mere legal notice cannot be treated as

compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. This Court finds no merit

in this contention. The plaintiff not only served the ddefendant efendant with a legal notice

but also marked his presence before the Sub Sub-Registrar Registrar on the date fixed for

execution of the sale deed. These facts are duly proved on record. The Courts

below rightly held that the plaintiff established readiness and willingne willingness ss in

accordance with law.

            RSA-3938-2025
                    2025 (O&M)                                                                 -9-

22. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellate court

wrongly relied upon an isolated admission of the appellant in cross cross-examination examination

regarding identification of his photograph on Ex.P Ex.P-1.

1. This Court is unable to

accept the contention. The judgments reveal that the Courts below did not rely

solely on the photograph but on the totality of evidence including signatures,

attestation, scribing and consistent depositions of witnesses. The reliance placed on

such evidencee cannot be faulted at this stage.

23. It was lastly argued that the remedy of specific performance is

discretionary and that the Courts below exercised the discretion mechanically

without considering the improbability of the transaction or the alleged in inequitable equitable

conduct of the plaintiff.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the terms of the

alleged agreement are inherently improbable, inasmuch as the plaintiff asserts that

out of the total sale consideration of ₹15,62,000/ ₹15,62,000/-, an amount of ₹15,50,000/- was

paid upfront as earnest money and only a balance of ₹12,000/- was left to be paid

on the date fixed for execution of the sale deed, i.e., 18.05.2016. It was urged that

no prudent person would leave such a negligible balance amount ffor or the date of

registration, which according to the appellant itself shows that the document was

never meant to be an agreement to sell but only a security for a loan.

25. This Court is unable to accept the contention. The improbability

suggested by the appellant is based merely on an assumption as to how parties

should ordinarily structure a transaction. The Courts below have concurrently

found, on the basis of evidence, that that the plaintiff proved payment of earnest

money, the execution of the agreement and the attestation thereof. The mere fact

that a very small amount remained to be paid on the date of execution does not, by

RSA-3938-2025 2025 (O&M) -10-

itself, render the document a loan security or ma make ke it legally infirm. Commercial

transactions vary in structure and parties are free to decide the manner of payment

so long as the terms are voluntarily agreed. No material has been shown by the

appellant to demonstrate that the agreed terms were fabricat fabricated ed or inconsistent with

the proved conduct of the parties. The argument, therefore, does not dislodge the

concurrent findings or cast doubt upon the nature of the transaction.

26. This Court finds no merit in this submission either. Both the Courts

below have recorded well-reasoned well reasoned findings holding that the appellant's defence

was unsupported, contradictory and devoid of credibility, whereas the plaintiff

proved the agreement, the payment of earnest money, his readiness and

willingness, and the failure of the appellant to perform his part of the contract. No

ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion in favour

of specific performance.

Conclusion

27. Upon consideration of the entire matter, this Court finds that the

findings recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court are based on proper

appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. No perversity, illegality or

misreading of evidence has been shown so as to warrant interference

28. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in

limine.

29. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

           December 04, 2025                            (MANDEEP PANNU)
           tripti                                            JUDGE
                  Whether speaking/non-speaking
                          speaking/non speaking : Speaking
                  Whether reportable             : Yes/No